Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-02-08

.
fun e. man elamrnzA With arinB4s tnat g
esit6 snd eonrifta1 e fbs psksEnf tern
a esurt shsg uunId nn1oub1s ~ e14e1n
new trinis Is unss ~ 80 mn3sr ec1sad
efHfion stoN.6 - heid insziid hese4f-
tes, bnt thae ca tie olhsr hsnd = ~
present term q eruFt s1Cuid nst y
hid, and fha 81 ehD1l1 - hslq
sasid. fhsy wDai6 0as a14 81 be eatt
lied % 8 at ones BsharEsd under ne
gsosfsfors - fss crininat praettse 49,
fseetipn T7fE tAat sAers = nos ns1e1
akoSze 81 horns % re 6lismmAy c4t
thaf a. : auession 81 sxp8olenoJ eSens
81 waa IN fa4er q the sssGion % the
corFf beisR beld nOws
The foIiosinz Dsmsd EsetlenAn %
/ posed q tsFm u eour1 beinR esla enoef
he ast. w. Nsss4. Ferry. CsfraA ano
4urea. wkf5e TIE foII0stnz GsDeo men
berz, being 81 siks minds, RAye rsasens
theFsfoT, a. foiiswss
TzdQs Lasuts osnsidsred tie rsesnt
desis0n of TIE Saprenne Co1Ff Rnsouna
sul bindiB4; could apprscisee 20 nna.s-
nal 1issinction between the tile % sne
aet thaFe caasse upDn and he one IN
Der disonssion. and be eboua1. that tie
souferns Coort would hold the ans 10
valid a Il had tbs Other. he was there
fore Opposed % ths piiirR 50 Of bills Of
sxpenss against ths TeFfisory b tie
baldine d 4 term Of eo1rt wkloh eouid
aeeompiish no end.
jade Jsssbs, 20 The insslidlty e the
law, aFRued ~ foiiowes Ihs decision Of
ths surrsme Court is binding. TIE
Question today Il, boa far a5es i GOT
Ja6ae LamRfoFd IN bis opinion covered
Al ere points raisad on the arNument,
bat JndRs Turner expressly di-ss1' I'd
from Jndas LAnafsrd IN his view Of the
-CfamblfnQ nct"-expFessiY agreed With
him 81 20 The inaafnsiency II ne title
In question. and aeitber affirmed OF dls-
affirmed tns vieWa,of LanafoFd Aa 70 The
o0u-existsnes sf fhe code Of WASHING
/ ton Territory. Does not JadRe IuF.
uer'n silence make him % be understood
a. aareainR via Judge LAnRfoFd - 10
/ that polnt9 That deciaion Of Judge
/ Landlord occupies q vantage Rrs1ud-
| New Judges e1miDR into the Territory.
manifested b local prsjudicss, viii for
/ low il II they can as honorable judges.
/ II 20. the ss-eaIied code Of 1881 must 60,
and viii il al ehe smendmenss 10 il 80
q code. Bat he point here In question
vas not presented then 70 the oOurt.
| How does Mr.. Hnines kno9 but II it
had been before them aided By his able
Arrunens thereon, they would not have
/ held themselves pOweFisas 20 sit ~ .
Rapfems Ooart tbsnf Il ID unfair 10 .
court 20 draw tnfefenoea from ita sileDc3
| noon q question r0t presented 70 IL.
viii tats title Be heid suf1icssns BE-
oauss ID contains the words entitled
/ OsQftsD What chances are we sakingI
l fhaueands Of doliaFa OF the public
money IL TO be apent IN holding this
Court, and property and personal rights
/ are 10 be adindioated upon.
/ Toe word courts" - . very generic
terra. All legislation 10 more OF les
oonnsesed with the Courts; almost every
/ law passed contains some provision for
| its endorsement In the Coarts. Tbs
eogd includes questioBs OF pieadin9, Of
pFacfies, Of iurladiction. We have So
| preme Couria, District Courts, Probate
courts and O0arts OF Justices Of the
| Pcaea. The object Of this act a. gath
cred from ifs details Il TO provide times
aud places fer holding the Supreme and
Dialfiat Courta 30 that title " Ceuvtsn
(tf il be titie) IL too general for q
title to sush an act.
Answering an argument Of MF. Haines.
Judge Jacobs arR1ed that section 2ll9
Of the Code Of w. T., claimed BY Hasnes
20 have been formally called into exist
ence BY Congress, IL nevhere referred
70 In tho title 10 the act In question, snd
therefore that point 10 not well taken.
Here Judge Greene calls attention 20
the fact that the headings or titles 10
the various chapters Of the Code are no
part Of them a. passed, bat are the
clerical uoEk Of the compiler. as are
ths numbers given the chapters and
sections, and therefore a reference 10
the heading Of chapter IL no better
than, bus is open % tbs same objections
as are references IN titles Of amendatory
acts 20 she numbers Of chapters or SEQ
lions u the acts sought to be amended.
Hafke, sustaining Tire lav, argued that
the question b fore the Suprefas Court
| IL Haulon VI. Territory, vas the right Of
womeu 10 ait en- gfand and petit iuries.
The constitution guarantees every per.
son held 70 answer for an Infamous
crime the right Of an examination Of his
case BIZ grand jary. What was meant
by grand inryl Surely the common
lac grand Jury Of men. and msn only.
Therefore the decision goes ns further
than is legitimate cad, and many Of
the arguments therein advanced are
sbiffr dicfa.
We are Hos here losing the Language Of
an eminent 5udge1 to scatoh at" rea-
sons for avoiding useful legislation.
As 10 the effect Of their language IS
10 the suilieieney Of titles 10 acts, now
ls the time 20 distinguish between eases
II there ever will be time. Look at the
conseaaencss,
Judge Burke further argued that con
stiIaiions are 20 Be broadly and ibsr-
ally construed.
Counsel (0ev. Ferry admits that the
title would have bean sufficient II 10 had
Rad "An aet relating 10 Oourta.n
such q construction must be placed
on this title. Any other is TOO narrow.
Tie cords "eptitled CouEts,n may BE-
read 10 mean relating 10 Courts.n
whatever fairly indicates the hjeot OF
legislation is sufficient. Fafther, We
must assume that the supreme Court
acted and will act consistently. Other
wise, We are asked 10 say thai that
CcuFs, sitting as q Court and existing
BY virtue Of this act, would have held
aud will hold this act Invalid.
Here Jadge Greene calls attention 10
the fact that the question raised here
was nsver before the Saprema Court,
and also makes this point / e. that this
act. by its title, refers 70 "chapter en-
titled OoaFts" We are asked 70 infer
that that chapter u in fact entitled
Courts, and does 10 fact relate 10 Courts,
and that the title pat ~ the head Of that
chapter By the compiler IL correct.
lodge BaFke Fesuming, cited Lord
Coke ~ saying that any expression used
by Parliament referring to and reeoR-
niEins 9 corporate body. constitutes
that hody q legal creature, aad from
that argued that the recognition By
Congress Of the Code o. Washington
Territory called q. Code Of Washington
Territory in1o being.
Judge Lewis. replying 30 the drst
argument advanced By JadRe Burke, in,
sisted that in 1854 oar Supreme CoaFt
pasaed upon the question these raised.
aud held tbs 9 under the Constitution Of
TIE United States women could be,
under the laws Of the Territory a. then
existing. csmpstent grand and petit
iaross, and therefore the coaFt cannot
nov be held b that point as q gtoand
for their dscssson, - the same ooart
had decided otherwise. IL Is argued
that we should look az the consequences
In this case. viii our. SapEense Court
Be governed by any saeh consideration
in uasssu1 uF,on this mint Whan in